BX 

£5"R55 



^LIBRARY OF- CONGRESS, 
1 




UNITED STATICS OF AMERICA. 



REMARKS 

THE REV. DR. WORCESTER'S 
SECOND 

LETTER TO ME. CHANNING, 

OF 

AMERICAN UNITARIANISM. 
WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 

Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Street, 



BOSTON : 

tPHl.NTiCD AND PUBLISHED BY WELLS AND LILLY. 



o 

V 



REMARKS, &c. 



Those who have read the second letter addressed 
to me by Dr. Worcester, will not be surprised at the 
appearance of these remarks. I intended to leave 
the controversy to the decision of the publick, who, 
I thought, were in possession of all the materials 
requisite to the formation of a correct judgment. 
But Dr. Worcester has called on me to retract what 
he pronounces a " flagrant misstatement" of an im- 
portant part of his letter ; and he has done this with 
a solemnity, which hardly permits me to observe the 
silence on which I had resolved. These remarks will 
relate primarily to that point, but I shall not restrain 
myself from offering observations on other parts of 
his letter. 

Dr. Worcester has complained with much earnest- 
ness, that I have imputed to him, in my former re- 
marks, a "bad spirit and intention." To this I 
answer, that I really did consider his letter as very 
unworthy of him as a christian and a christian min- 
ister. I did think, that if the principles of his letter 
could be reduced to practice, every Unitarian would 
be driven from the church, and every minister of 
Unitarian sentiments would be driven from the pul- 
pit. I did think, that he discovered a strange in- 
sensibility towards his brethren, whose moral purity 
had been so wantonly assailed in the Review of the 
Panoplist. I also acknowledge, that I did not dis- 
cover any marks of that affection and respect to- 
wards myself, of which he speaks in his second letter. 
Believing that his remarks directly tended to divide 
the church, and to expose a respectable body of 
christians to reproach arid injurious treatment, I 



4 



spoke of this tendency with plainness, but without 
bitterness or anger. Whether my interpretation of 
Dr. Worcester's letter, in these respects, was unau- 
thorized, I cheerfully leave to the decision of those 
who have read it. My own impressions have coin- 
cided with those of all around me ; and I cannot 
believe, that I have not one friend of a candid mind, 
and of sufficient ability to decide on the obvious im- 
port of a letter written in our native tongue. 

Dr. Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings 
and intentions which I have ascribed to him. He 
professes to have been governed by respect and af- 
fection towards me, and by a spirit of forbearance, 
kindness, tenderness, and undissembled good will 
towards his brethren. That Dr. Worcester is sin- 
cere in reporting what now appears to him to have 
been the state of his mind during the composition of 
his first letter, I am far from denying. But on a 
subject like this, memory is sometimes treacherous ; 
and I confess I cannot shake off the conviction, that 
some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by Dr. 
Worcester, occasionally guided his pen. But I mean 
not to pursue this point. I have not the least dispo- 
sition to attribute to Dr. Worcester any intentions 
which he disclaims. I had much rather believe, that 
his style is unhappy, than that his temper is evil. 
Most sincerely do I wish, that his heart may be a 
stranger to every unworthy sentiment, that his life 
may be adorned with every virtue, and be crowned 
with every blessing. 

THE CHARGE OF " FLAGRANT MISSTATEMENT." 

I now come to my great object. In my former 
remarks, I observed, that Dr. Worcester " has so- 
lemnly and publickiy given all his influence to the 
" opinion, that we, and all who agree with us on the 
" subject of the Trinity, are to be disowned by the 



6 



<* church of Christ. The obvious import of the coa* 
» eluding part of his letter, (and it is the obvious 
*' import, and not a strained and circuitous interpre- 
64 tation which I regard,) may be thus expressed. 
£ 4 Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of 

* scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in 
" one God, which I and other orthodox christians 

* embrace, believes an opposite gospel, rejects the 
true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, 

* is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety, 
44 and without christian virtue, and may, in perfect 
44 consistency with christian love, be rejected as un- 
* 4 worthy the name of a christian.' " On this repre- 
sentation of his sentiments, Dr. Worcester thus re- 
marks, 44 Your statement of the import of the 
44 concluding part of my letter is most palpably 
64 incorrect and unjust. And though I attribute this 
* 4 incorrectness and injustice not to any injurious in- 

tention, but to that habit of thinking and feeling of 
44 which I have before taken notice ; yet, after what 
44 I have now stated, I think I have a right to call 
44 upon you, and I do solemnly call upon you, to retract 
44 this flagrant misstatement. I know, indeed, you 
44 have given it to be understood, that you shall not 
44 write again ; but, Sir, the publick disputant, who 
44 makes this resolve, ought to be careful, not merely 
44 not to put down aught in malice, but to write 
44 nothing which justice to his opponent and to the 
44 cause of truth — nothing which the sacred princi- 
44 pies of Christianity will require him to retract." 

This is the charge, which has again brought me 
before the publick, the charge of palpable incorrect- 
ness and injustice, and of flagrant misstatement. I now 
intend fairly and fully to meet it. I intend to show, 
that in giving this interpretation, I followed the na- 
tural meaning of Dr. Worcester's words, that I put 
no violence on his language* and that no other sense 



I) 



would have offered itself to an unprejudiced inind. 
I shall state the passages which led to the repre- 
sentation which I have formed, beginning with those 
which are least decisive, as these first present them- 
selves in the letter, and requesting the reader to 
form his judgment, not from a part, but from the 
whole which shall be presented to him. 

In page 24, of Dr. Worcester's letter, I found the 
following quotation from scripture, with the subjoined 
remark : " St. Peter says, ' There were false pro- 
" phets also among the people, even as there snail 
f be false teachers among you, who privily shall 
" bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
" that bought them, and bring upon themselves 
** swift destruction.' If this language sound harsh 
" and unfashionable," Dr. Worcester continues, " I 
> 4 trust, Sir, you will have the goodness not to im- 
" pute the fault to me; or that you will not on account 
" of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse to 
" give attention to the momentous sentiment contain- 
" ed in it." I did consider this text of scripture, 
followed by this remark, as intended by Dr. Wor- 
cester to be applied to my brethren and to myself, 
and to hold us up to the community as false teachers, 
who have brought in damnable heresies, who have 
denied the Lord that bought us, and who are bringing 
on ourselves swift destruction, I believed that every 
reader would give this application to the passage, 
and that some would be confirmed by it in denying 
to all Unitarian ministers the christian character. 
Dr. Worcester has frankly acknowledged the impro- 
priety of the remark which follows the text; and I 
introduce it now, not for the sake of casting on him 
the slightest reproach, but simply to state the im- 
pression which it naturally communicated, at the 
time when my remarks were written. 

In page 24, Dr. Worcester speaks of " the doc- 
^ trines on which we differ," as " doctrines which 



7 



* 6 immediately affect the very foundations of our 
" faith and he adds, that " a true faith is the vital 
" principle of all .holy practice, and of all the works 
" which are good and acceptable in the sight of 
" God." I understood this passage as strongly inti- 
mating, that Unitarian principles shake the very foun- 
dation of all holy practice, and of all good works. 

In page 24, I met the following remarkable pas- 
sage : " The God whom you worship, is different 
" from ours" and a little below, " if we are wrong 
" in regard to the object of our worship, we can 
" hardly be right in any part of our religion." I 
understood this passage as strongly intimating, that 
the whole religion of Unitarians is rendered worth- 
less, by their departure from the " orthodox," on the 
subject of the Trinity. 

r age 29, 1 met the following passage, which seem- 
ed to me to admit but one construction. Dr. Wor- 
cester is speaking of the different schemes of Mr. 
Belsham, and of "orthodox christians;" and he says,- 
;i One or the other of these schemes must be what 
" St. Paul denominates 4 another gospel,' and against 
" which and its abettors he solemnly pronounces 
" his apostolick anathema." Which of these two 
schemes Dr. Worcester intended to mark out as 
" another gospel," is a question which no reader of 
his letter will wish me to discuss. Who doubts that 
it was Mr. Belsham's ? Against this scheme then, 
and against its abettors, the apostolick curse is pro- 
nounced. This I certainly understood to be Dr. 
Worcester's meaning, and I see not what other 
sense the passage will bear. I also had not a doubt 
that Dr. Worcester in representing the abettors of 
Mr. Belsham's scheme as accursed, intended to repre- 
sent them as wholly destitute of piety and christian 
virtue, for this I naturally conceived was implied in 
the curse of God. Dr. Worcester indeed says, that 



8 

he did not draw this inference, but it seemed to me 
too plain to need the formality of a deduction. I be- 
lieve, that this will be granted by all to be the plain 
sense of his words — But it may be said that this pas- 
sage only includes the followers of Mr. Belsham. 
Let the reader observe Dr. Worcester's phraseolo- 
gy. He does not say followers, but abettors. Let the 
reader then look back to pages 10 and 11 of Dr. 
Worcester's letter. He will there find Dr. Worces- 
ter very strongly intimating that the liberal party gen- 
erally are partakers in the deeds and guilt of Mr. 
Belsham, because they bear no decided testimony 
against them. The natural import, then, of this 
passage is, not only that Mr. Belsham in particular, 
but that the liberal party in general, fall under the 
apostolick curse. But the next passage is still more 
decisive. 

Page 32, I met the following passage. " Is it 
44 a violation of the great law of love for the friends of 
i4 truth to decline communion with its rejecters ? We 
44 have nothing to do here with slight diversities of 
44 opinion ; with differences about modes or forms, or 
44 inconsiderable points of faith or practice. Our con- 
44 cern is with differences of a radical and fundamental 
44 nature ; such as exist between orthodox Christians 
44 and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the 
44 creed of Mr. Belsham : for to this point you have 
44 yourself fairly reduced the present question. Yes, 
44 Sir, the simple point here at issue is, Whether it 
44 be a violation of the law of love, for believers in 
44 the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, to separate from 
44 believers in another and an opposite gospel? If 
44 yours is the true Gospel, then ours is another ; if 
44 ours is the true Gospel, then yours is another.'' I 
clearly understood Dr. Worcester, in this passage, as 
saying, that the differences between 44 orthodox Chris- 
44 tians" and Unitarians are radical and fundamental, 



9 



^tnd that / and my brethren and Unitarians of all 
degrees hold " another gospel," and even an opposite 
gospel to the true. I understood too, that as he 
considered Mr. Belsham and his abettors as accursed 
because they had 44 another gospel," he intended to 
represent me, and all who agree with me in rejecting 
the "orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity, as also falling 
under the apostle's curse, because he represents our 
gospel not only as 44 another" but as opposite to the 
true gospel. I also understood his pointed interro- 
gations as strongly teaching, that the 44 friends of 
truth" (a phrase never doubtful in Dr. Worcester's 
mouth) may separate themselves from us and decline 
communion with us, without any 44 violation of Chris- 
tian love." What other interpretation this passage 
can bear, I confess myself as yet unable to conceive. 

Page 33, I met with a passage which also seemed 
to me very plain and decisive. Dr. Worcester asks, 
66 Would it conduce more to the promotion of truth, 
" for the believers in the true gospel, to hold fellow- 
u ship with the believers in another gospel, than to 
" separate from them ? We have seen in what way 
44 only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to 
44 be maintained, the principal doctrines of the gospel 
44 must cease to be clearly preached ; divine worship 
"must cease to be conducted on principles distin- 
44 guishingly Christian, &c. &c. But is this the way, 
44 Sir, to promote the truth in the church and the 
44 world ? Is it not rather the way to extinguish the 
44 light of the ministry, the light of the church, the light 
44 of the world, to throw back the children of light 
44 into darkness and the shadow of death, and to leave 
44 the prince of darkness to triumph in an unlimited and 
44 undisturbed empire ?" I thought this passage very 
plain. I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, that 
were 44 orthodox Christians" to wave in their preach- 
ing and in publick worship those peculiarities which 



10 



are disapproved by Unitarians, the light of the gos- 
pel would be put out, the ministry would be useless, 
Christians would fall back into the shadow of death, 
and Satan would rule the minds of men without any 
limitation or any disturbance to his power. In other 
words, I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, that 
where a Unitarian ministry and worship are estab- 
lished, the minds of men are altogether unenlightened 
by the gospel, and are abandoned wholly to the sway 
of the prince of darkness. This is indeed a horrible 
sentiment— But as yet I see no explanation of the 
passage by which it can be avoided. 

I now come to the last passage which I shall quote, 
found in page 35. " Sir, the differences, which exist 
44 between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians 
44 are certainly of a nature to demand the most seri- 
44 ous and earnest attention. They concern most 
44 directly and essentially the glory of God, the hon- 
44 our of the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and 
44 the salvation of men. In comparison with these, 
44 the difference between Dissenters and Episcopa- 
44 lians, between Paedo-baptists and Anti-psedo-bap- 
44 tists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. 
44 Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differen- 
44 ces out of light, to conceal their magnitude and 
44 momentous consequences ; or by a raised cry of 
44 bigotry, illiberality, and intolerance, to divert the 
44 publick attention from them. They must and will 
44 be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered ; 
44 and ministers, and churches, professed christians, 
44 and all others must and will be brought to the 
44 solemn decision — whether they will be for Christ, 
44 or against him ; whether they will receive and hold 
44 fast his truth, or despise and reject it ; whether they 
44 will bow to his authority, and trust in his grace, or 
44 refuse to have him to reign over them, and contemn 
44 Ms salvation." This passage seemed to me per- 
fectly plain when I wrote my remarks, and I am yet 



11 



Enable to give it a different interpretation. Dr. 
Worcester speaks in this passage of Unitarians in 
the broadest sense of the word, of Unitarians as op- 
posed to " orthodox christians," i. e. of all who re- 
ject the *• orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity. He 
says that the differences between this class and the 
" orthodox" concern most directly and essentially the 
salvation of men ; that these differences, in spite of 
clamour and concealment, will be fearlessly discuss- 
ed; and that in deciding on these differences, in 
choosing between these parties, men will in fact de- 
cide whether they will be for Christ, will receive and 
bow to his truth, or will be against him, will despise. 
his truth and salvation, and refuse to have him to 
reign over him. I thought this passage too obvious 
to admit dispute. I understood Dr. W orcester as 
charging Unitarians of all degrees with contempt 
and rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ, and 
of course, with entire destitution of piety and chris- 
tian virtue. 

I have selected several passages from Dr. Worces- 
ter's letter, which appear to me to vindicate entirely 
the statement which I made of his sentiments. Let 
me now ask the reader to examine them in the con- 
nexion in which they stand. He will find nothing 
thrown in by Dr. Worcester to restrain their 
natural import ; not one word expressive of charity, 
for Unitarians of any class ; not one word to soften 
the severity of his censure. His whole reasonings 
and interrogations appeared to me to have one bear- 
ing, to breathe one spirit, and left me without a doubt 
as to his real meaning. 

I can further say that there was nothing in the 
state of my mind unfavourable to a fair interpreta- 
tion of Dr. Worcester's letter. I regarded him as a 
man of candour and moderation. I expected nothing 
like exclusion and denunciation. Seldom have I 
known a more cruel disappointment than in reading 



12 



his first letter. To this I can add, that among those 
with whom I have conversed, I have found but one 
sentiment in regard to his meaning. I cannot there- 
fore believe, that my prejudices have blinded me, 
and that I am chargeable with 44 palpable and flagrant 
misstatement." 

Dr. Worcester however assures me that I have 
misrepresented him ; and I have no disposition to 
question the sincerity, with which he now declares, 
that he did not intend to communicate the senti- 
ments which I ascribed to him. I cannot indeed 
avoid the belief, that his recollections on this point 
are imperfect, and that in the hurry of his thoughts 
and feelings, he was not so watchful over his mo- 
tives as he now imagines. With this, however, I have 
no concern. I am satisfied with having shown, that 
my interpretation was natural, and indeed unavoida- 
ble, and I cheerfully record the protest of Dr. Wor- 
cester against this interpretation. I am pleased to 
witness the sensibility with which he repels the 
charge of denying to Anti-Trinitarians all piety 
and virtue. I observe in this a degree of candour 
of which I could not discern the faintest ray in his 
first letter. 

dr. Worcester's concession in favour of dr. 

CLARKE. 

There is another part of Dr. Worcester's letter 
which also gave me some pleasure. I refer to that 
part, in which he expresses some charitable senti- 
ments towards Dr. Samuel Clarke. He tells us, 
64 that he is by no means prepared to say that every 
44 one who adopts Dr. Clarice's views of the Trinity 
44 rejects the true gospel, embraces another, and is 
44 devoid of christian faith and virtue." Now if h* 
will act consistently with these sentiments, and with 
the charitable dispositions which he seems inclined 
to exercise towards the author of 44 Bible News," 



13 

the controrersy between us will sooh end. As far 
as I understand the prevalent sentiments among libe- 
ral christians in this quarter of our country, they 
appear to me substantially to agree with the views 
of these excellent men ; and were we required to 
select human leaders in religion, I believe, that we 
should range ourselves under their standard in pre- 
ference to any other. Dr. Clarke believed, that the 
Father alone is the Supreme God, and that Jesus 
Christ is not the Supreme Cod, but derived his be- 
ing, and all his power and honours from the Father, 
even from an act of the Father's power and will. 
He maintains, that as the scriptures have not taught 
us the manner in which the Son derived his existence 
from his Father, it is presumptuous to affirm, that 
the Son was created, or, that there was a time when 
he did not exist. On these subjects the word of 
God has not given us light, and therefore we ought 
to be silent. The author of " Bible News," in like 
manner affirms, that the Father only is the Supreme 
God, that Jesus is a distinct being from G od, and that 
he derives every thing from his Father. He has 
some views relating to the "proper Sonship" of 
God, which neither liberal nor " orthodox" chris- 
tians generally embrace. But the prevalent senti- 
ments of liberal christians seem to me to accord sub- 
stantially with the systems I have above described. 
Like Dr. Clarke, the majority of this class feel that 
the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's 
derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a crea- 
ture, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which 
they find it, carrying with them, however, an im- 
pression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the 
character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, 
and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other be- 
ing. With respect to the atonement, the great 
feody of liberal christians seem to me to accord pre- 



14 



cisely with the author of " Bible News," or rather 
both agree very much with the profound Butler. 
Both agree, that Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and 
intercession, obtains forgiveness for sinful men, or 
that on account, or in consequence of what Christ 
has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is aver- 
ted from the penitent, and blessings, forfeited by 
sin, are bestowed. On the question which is often 
asked, how the death of Christ has this blessed in- 
fluence, they generally think that the scriptures have 
given us little light, and that it is the part of wisdom 
to accept the kind appointment of God, without con- 
structing theories for which the materials must be 
chiefly borrowed from our own imagination. 

My motive for making the preceding statement is 
no other than a desire to contribute whatever may 
be in my power to the peace of our churches. I 
have hoped that by this representation, some portion 
of the charity which has been expressed towards 
Dr. Clarke, and the author of " Bible News," may be 
extended towards their Unitarian brethren ; and that 
thus the ecclesiastical division which is threatened 
may be averted. Let it not, however, be imagined 
that I or my friends are anxious on our own account 
to extort from the " orthodox" an acknowledgment, 
that possibly we hold the true gospel, and are not 
64 devoid of christian faith and virtue." We regard 
other christians as brethren, but can in no degree 
recognize them as superiours in the church of our 
common master. We do not dread the censures 
which they may pass on our honest opinions : We 
rejoice that we have a higher judge, whose truth it 
is our labour to learn, obey, and maintain, and whose 
favour will be distributed by other principles than 
those which prevail in a prejudiced and shortsighted 
world. But, whilst we mean not to be suitors to 
our brethren ; we are willing and desirous, by any 



w 

fair representations, to save them from a course, 
which, as we firmly believe, will be injurious to 
their own characters, injurious to their brethren, un- 
friendly to the diffusion of the gospel, and highly 
offensive to our common and benevolent master. 

Happy should I be, if by any representation or 
any honourable concessions on our part, our churches 
could be preserved from the shock which threatens 
them. But on this point Dr. Worcester's last letter 
is as discouraging as the first. He indeed dis<- 
claims the intention of denying to Anti-trinitarians 
all piety and virtue. But the tendency of his letters 
must be obvious to the humblest understanding, and 
I doubt not that many carry from them the impres- 
sion, that Unitarians criminally reject the gospel, and 
ought to be driven from the church. This effect, 
whether intended or not, is produced, and for this 
we hold Dr. Worcester responsible. 

THE METHODS OF RENDERING UNITARIANS ODIOUS. 

In his last letter, one great object seems to be, to 
paint in the strongest colours the differences between 
Unitarians and Trinitarians, and to produce the most 
unfavourable impression in regard to the former. To 
effect this object, he again and again brings forward 
the views of the lowest Unitarians, and culls the 
most offensive passages from the works of Dr. 
Priestley and Mr. Belsham. I know that he throws 
in a caution against the inference, that all Unitarians 
are responsible for these views : but I am persuaded, 
that the effect on common readers is, that they iden- 
tify this whole class of Christians with Mr. Belsham 
and Dr. Priestley. Now to this I object. It is well 
known that every denomination of Christians is bro- 
ken into various subdivisions. For instance, among 
those who adopt the great principles of Calvin, are 
Sandemanians, Antinomians, Fatalists, and I may 
add, Universalists. Suppose now that in delineating 



16 



Calvinism, 1 should lay the chief stress on these 
peculiarities. Or suppose, that I should ransack the 
writings of Trinitarians, should collect all their crude 
notions and wild explanations of the Trinity, and 
should bring forward the horrible language, in which 
some have spoken of God's wrath burning against 
his Son, and of the blood of Jesus appeasing the fury 
of the Father. Would not Calvinists and Trinita- 
rians pronounce me unfair, if by such methods I 
should lead common readers to imagine, that they were 
generally favourable to these offensive sentiments. 
It is an indisputable fact, that Dr. Priestley and Mr. 
Belsham have, comparatively, few followers among 
the Anti-trinitarian clergy of this country. For my- 
self, I have read very few of the writings of these gen- 
tlemen, and chiefly from want of sympathy with their 
general views. Their theology appears to me very 
defective, and their theory of materialism and of neces- 
sity, which they have attempted to incorporate with 
their theology, seems to me unfriendly to a sense of 
responsibility, and to elevation of moral feeling. Are 
we then to be confounded with the lower Unitarians, 
because we happen to accord with them in the great 
point, that the Father alone is the supreme God, 
and that Jesus Christ derives from him his being and 
all his powers. — Do any ask me on what ground I 
admit those, whose theology is so defective, to be 
Christians? I answer; precisely on the ground on 
which I acknowledge the Christian character of 
another denomination, whose additions to the simple 
gospel seem to me at least as exceptionable as the 
deficiencies of their brethren. But what did I say ? 
that / admit these men to be Christians ! They need 
no admission of mine. Professing Jesus to be their 
head, and exhibiting in their lives a reverence for his 
gospel, they have a place in Christ's church which I did 
not give, and which neither I nor any other man can 
take away. 



17 



Another method of awakening publick feeling 
against the Unitarians, is to represent them as obliged 
by their sentiments to give up the doctrine of the 
atonement. It is indeed very true, that Unitarians 
say nothing about infinite atonement, and they shud- 
der when they hear, what Dr. Worcester seems to 
assert, that the ever blessed God suffered and died 
on the cross. They reject these representations, 
because they find not one passage in scripture 
which directly asserts them, or gives them sup- 
port. Not one word do we hear from Christ or his 
Apostles of an infinite atonement. In not one solitary 
text, is the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining for- 
giveness, ascribed to his being the Supreme God. 
All this is theology of man's making, and strongly 
marked with the hand of its author. But the doc- 
trine of the atonement, taken in the broad sense which 
I have before stated, is not rejected by Unitarians. 
In my former letter, I adduced two distinguished 
Unitarians, Dr. Clarke, and the author of Bible News, 
in whose valuable writings this doctrine is stated 
and maintained. Dr. Worcester does not deny 
the fact, but to my astonishment has attempted to 
escape its force, by maintaining that these gentlemen 
do not deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, and 
are therefore not obliged to renounce the atonement 
What! Dr. Clarke and Mr. Noah Worcester do not 
deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ ! I assure Dr. 
Worcester then, that neither I nor my friends deny it, 
and that, according to his own language, we are under 
no necessity of denying the doctrine of the atonement. 
The fact is, that some of the best works on the atones 
ment have come from the pens of Unitarians. Mr. 
Tomkins, one of the most zealous Unitarians of his age, 
and I believe a sufferer for his principles, published a 
well known treatise, called " Jesus Christ the Medi- 
" ator," in which the doctrine of atonement is more 
Strenuouslv insisted on, than even bv Dr. Clarke and 
3 



Mr. Noah Worcester. Not long ago, there was 
published in this country, I think under the patron- 
age of Trinitarians, a work on the atonement by 
Hampton, called " Candid Remarks on Dr. Taylor, 
&c." which, as I well recollect, appeared to me, when 
I read it, to be decidedly the production of an 
Unitarian. It contains not one word about an infinite 
atonement made by the Supreme God. The sentiments 
of the work, I think, accord in the main with the 
views of many Unitarians in this country. Unitari- 
anism, then, does not exclude the doctrine of atone- 
ment. 

Another method by which the publick feelings are 
to be awakened against Unitarians, is the frequent 
assertion, that they disbelieve the Trinity, because 
the doctrine is mysterious, and because they prefer 
reason to revelation, human wisdom to the wisdom 
of God. Dr. Worcester says to me, "The doctrine 
" of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly deny, not be- 
" cause there is no proof of it in the Scriptures, but 
" because it is a doctrine (as you repeatedly and em- 
" phatically pronounce) perplexing, mysterious, and 
~ not to be understood." What will common readers 
infer from this, and from other passages in his letter ? 
Why, that Ave do not rest on scripture, as the ground 
of our rejection of this doctrine, or at least, that we do 
not consider the scriptures as very strongly opposed 
to the Trinity, and that we assail it chiefly with 
weapons furnished by reason. Now, as far as my 
knowledge of Unitarian writers extends, this impres- 
sion is altogether unfounded. We do indeed object 
to the Trinity, that, as it is often stated, it is an unin- 
telligible proposition ; and we say, what I presume 
Dr. Worcester will as freely say, that it is out of our 
power to believe a proposition of which we do not 
know the meaning. It is also true, that when the 
doctrine is stated^ as it sometimes is, in words which 
we understand ; when for example we are told by 



19 



the pious Howe, that the three persons in God are 
three minds; we insist that it involves a palpable con- 
tradiction, and we argue precisely as the protestants 
do with the papists, that a doctrine involving a con- 
tradiction cannot be from God. But Unitarians 
never stop here. They always declare that Scrip- 
ture with one voice disowns the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and that of all the fictions of theologians, 
the doctrine of three persons in the one God, has 
perhaps the least countenance from the Bible. Their 
writings are filled with quotations from Scripture, 
Some of them, like Dr. Clarke's, consist almost 
•entirely of texts arranged under proper heads. Uni- 
tarians believe, and constantly affirm, that no 
laboured comments and no critical skill are required, 
to teach common Christians the great truth, that the 
Father alone is the supreme God, and that Jesus 
Christ is a derived and dependent being ; and they 
believe and affirm, that the opposite sentiment is 
chiefly maintained by appeals to men's fears, and by ar- 
tificial excitement of their feelings. This is the ground 
taken by all the Unitarians whom I have known, 
and on this Scripture ground I profess myself to rest. 
I am not conscious of the least prejudice against the 
doctrine of the Trinity. My earliest prepossessions 
must have been in its favour. But in my youth, 
before I had read a book on the subject, the Scrip- 
tures suggested doubts of its truth, and by the study 
chiefly of the Scriptures, my doubts have grown up 
into a solid conviction. The Scriptures, in my view, 
are the strength of the Unitarian cause ; and I am 
persuaded, that they are continually extending it in 
opposition to the strongest influences of education. 
I have found from conversing with pious people of 
both sexes, that the Scriptures always gave them 
the idea, that God and Jesus Christ were distinct 
beings, and that Jesus derived his being and power 
from God. They have sometimes told me, that they 



20 

have wished to resist this impression, that they hare 
dreaded to depart from principles which were early 
instilled as essential, that they have shrunk from a 
doubt of the Trinity as from a sin ; but still the lan- 
uage of Scripture has forced them to doubt and 
isbelieve. This is the history of many minds ; and 
many, I am confident, have buried in silence anxious 
scruples, which they dared not clothe in words. 

I state this with great distinctness and strength, 
that I may repel and remove a common mistake 
among Christians, that we reject the Trinity because 
we cannot reconcile it with reason, although we can 
hardly help acknowledging it as a Scripture doctrine. 
It is not because we exalt reason above Scripture, 
but because we revere the Scriptures, because we 
fear God, that we maintain Unitarian principles. 
We dare not offer prayers to the Holy Ghost, 
because we find not one command, or one example 
of such worship, in the gospel of our Master; and we 
honour him too entirely to depart from his plain 
rules on so important a subject. We read too in 
the Scriptures such passages as these. " My Father 
is greater than I." " This is eternal life, that 
men may know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom thou hast sent.'''' " Of that day and 
hour knoweth no man, not the angels which are in 
heaven, neither the Son, but the father, the father 
only." " I can do nothing of myself" " My doctrine 
is not mine, but his who sent me. If any will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself" We hear these 
passages from the very lips of our honoured and 
beloved Lord; and with these passages engraven on 
our minds, and supported by the whole current of 
Scripture, we dare not, we dare not approach Jesus 
Christ as the only living, the only true God. It is 
from reverence for his character and instructions, 
from fear of offending him, from a conscientiousness 



21 

which would prompt us to sacrifice all in his service, 
that we offer him no homage, but in the character of 
the Son of the only living and true God. 

Another method of awakening the feelings of 
Christians on the subject of the Trinity, is to address 
their fears. It is common with Trinitarians, and Dr. 
Worcester has learned it, to say to people, " If the 
Trinity rests on the sure foundation of divine testis 
mony, if Jesus Christ is essentially divine, &c. &c. is 
it a light thing to reject these doctrines, to refuse to Je- 
sus divine honours, &c. &c." Appeals of this kind, 
which are ordinarily connected with positive assertions 
of the truth of the Trinity, are worth a thousand argu- 
ments, and terrify into silence the doubts which lurk 
in many minds. I mourn that Christians should 
think so unworthily of Jesus, as to be moved by this 
language. This language evidently supposes, that 
Jesus, our merciful Saviour, overlooks the general 
temper of our minds, the general obedience of our 
lives, and, like a jealous sovereign, is prepared to 
punish every deficiency of homage to himself, how- 
ever unintentionally the tribute- may be withheld, 
and however sincere and upright the heart which 
unconsciously withholds it. And is this the 
character of our merciful Lord ? Suppose that a 
human benefactor, of exalted endowments, were to 
confer on you some great blessing, and suppose that 
through ignorance of these endowments, you should 
not address him with all the terms of homage which 
they deserve, but should yet be sincerely grateful 
for the benefit he has conferred, and should love and 
imitate his excellence as far as it is known ? Think 
you, that he would spurn your imperfect tribute, and 
drive you from his presence ? And will Jesus, whose 
kindness was stronger than death, who bore so pa- 
tiently the low views of his disciples, will he cast 
from him those, who at the present day revere his 
authority, study his word, and labour to derive from 



22 



that pure fountain the very truths which he taught 
respecting himself, and respecting the service which 
is his due. I am persuaded, that at the last day the 
Trinitarian will be found in a great errour, and were 
I disposed, I could make as moving an appeal to his 
fears as Dr. Worcester can make to ours. But if 
there be a principle, which above all others shines 
resplendently in the sacred volume, it is this, that 
he who breathes the spirit and follows the steps of 
Jesus, however faint or defective be his views, will 
certainly enter into the joy of his Lord. 

Another method of awakening the feelings of the 
community against Unitarian sentiments is this. Dr. 
Worcester charges me again and again with attempt- 
ing studiously to conceal the differences between Uni- 
tarians and Trinitarians, as if our sentiments were 
too horrible to be brought fully and fairly to the 
light. He intimates that toe "dread a develope- 
ment." And does Dr. Worcester really believe that 
we stand in awe of him, or his w orthodox" brethren ? 
We respect many of our opponents, but we dread 
none. Our love of peace, they may be assured, ha? 
another origin than fear or selfish views. It is from 
deep conviction, and not from the principle which 
Dr. Worcester insinuates, that I have stated once 
and again, that the differences between Unitarians 
and Trinitarians lie more in sounds than in ideas ; 
that a barbarous phraseology is the chief wall of 
partition between these classes of Christians ; and that 
would Trinitarians tell us what they mean, their 
system would generally be found little else, than a 
mystical form of the Unitarian doctrine. These two 
classes of Christians appear to me to concur in 
receiving the most interesting and practical truths 
of the gospel. Both believe in one God of infinite 
perfection ; and we must remember, that it is this 
perfection of God, and not his unknown substance, 
which is the proper object of the Christian's love. 



/ 



23 



Both believe in the great doctrine* that eternal life is 
the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. Both 
learn from the lips and life of Jesus the same great 
principles of duty, the same exalted views of human 
perfection, and the same path to immortality. I 
could easily extend these points of agreement ; and 
what are the questions which divide them ? Why 
these ; first, Whether the One God be three distinct 
subsistences,* or threej>ersons, or three " somewhats'^ 
called persons, as Dr. Worcester says, for want of a 
" better word and secondly, Whether one of these 
three subsistences, or improperly called persons, 
formed a personal union with a human soul, so that 
the Infinite mind, and a human mind, each possessing 
its own distinct consciousness, became a complex per- 
son. Such are the points, or rather phrases of dif- 
ference between these Christians. And ought phra-* 
ses like these, of which we find not a trace in the 
Bible, which cannot be defined by those who employ 
them, which convey to common minds no more mean- 
ing than words of an unknown tongue, and which 
present to the learned only flitting shadows of 
thought instead of clear and steady conceptions, to 
separate those who are united in the great principles 
which I have stated ? Trinitarians indeed are apt to 
think themselves at an immeasurable distance from 
Unitarians. The reason, I think, is, that they 
are surrounded with a mist of obscure phraseology. 
Were this mist dispersed, I believe that they would be 
surprised at discovering their proximity to the quar- 
ter of the Unitarians, and would learn that they had 
been wasting their hostility on a band of friends and 
brothers. Whenever Trinitarians begin to explain 
themselves, we find that their three persons vanish 
into three undefinable somethings^ and that God suffered 

* Wardlaw. 

f This word has been used by Trinitarians in writing and cpnyeiv 
sation. 



24 



for us on the cross only by a figure or metaphysical 
fiction. Such is Trinitarianism, as it appears to my 
mind. In all this I may mistake, but I have no motive 
and certainly no desire to practise " concealment*" 

THE SYSTEM OF EXCLUSION AND DENUNCIATION CONSI- 
DERED. 

The object of Dr. Worcester, in the representation, 
which I have now considered, seems to be, to prepare 
the " orthodox" for separation from their Unitarian 
brethren. His remarks all tend to teach them, that 
they ought to refuse communion with Unitarians as 
Christians, to deny them the character and name of 
Christians, to deny their title to the ordinances of the 
gospel ; in a word to disown them as brethren in 
Christ. On this point I shall now offer several ob- 
servations. — But first I beg that it may be dis- 
tinctly understood, that the zeal of liberal Chris- 
tians on this point has no other object, than the 
peace and prosperity of the church of Christ. 
We are pleading, not our own cause, but the 
cause of our Master. The denial of our christian 
character by fallible and imperfect men gives us no 
anxiety. Our relation to Jesus Christ is not to be 
dissolved by the breath of man. Our christian rights 
do not depend on human passions. We have precise- 
ly the same power over our brethren, which they have 
over us, and are equally authorized to sever them 
from the body of Christ. Still more ; if the possession 
of truth give superiour weight to denunciation, we are 
persuaded that our opposers will be the severest suf- 
ferers, should we think fit to hurl back the sentence 
of exclusion and condemnation. But we have no dis- 
position to usurp power over our brethren. We be- 
lieve, that the spirit which is so studiously excited 
against ourselves, has done incalculable injury to the 
cause of Christ ; and we pray God to deliver us from 
its power. 



25 



Why are the name, character, and rights of Christ 
tians to be denied to Unitarians ? Do they deny that 
Jesus is the Christ ? do they reject his word as the 
rule of their faith and practice ? do their lives dis- 
cover indifference to his authority and example ? No. 
these are not their offences. They are deficient in 
none of the qualifications of disciples, which were re- 
quired in the primitive age. Their offence is, that 
they read the Scriptures for themselves, and derive 
from them different opinions on certain points, from 
those which others have adopted. Mistake of judg- 
ment is their pretended crime, and this crime is laid 
to their charge by men, who are as liable to mistake 
as themselves, and who seem to them to have fallen 
into some of the grossest errours. A condemning sen- 
tence from such judges carries with it no terrour. Sor- 
row for its uncharitableness, and strong disapproba- 
tion of its arrogance, are the principal feelings which 
it inspires. 

It is truly astonishing, that Christians are not more 
impressed with the unbecoming spirit, the arrogant 
style, of those,who deny the christian character to pro- 
fessed and exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, be- 
cause they differ in opinion on some of the most sub- 
tle and difficult subjects of theology. A stranger, at 
hearing the language of these denouncers, would con- 
clude, without a doubt, that they were clothed with in- 
fallibility, and were appointed to sit in judgment on 
their brethren. But for myself, I know not a shadow 
of pretence for the language of superiority assumed 
by Dr. Worcester and his brethren. Are they exempt- 
ed from the common frailty of our nature ? Has God 
given them superiour intelligence? Were they educated 
under circumstances more favourable to improvement 
than those whom they condemn. Have they brought 
to the scriptures more serious, anxious, and unwearied 
attention? Or do their lives express a deeper reverence 
for God and for his Son ? No. They are fallible, imper- 

4 



m 



feet men, possessing no higher means, and no strong- 
er motives for studying the word of God, than then- 
Unitarian brethren. And yet their language to them 
is virtually this. " We pronounce you to be in er- 
" rour, and in most dangerous errour. We know that 
H we are right, and that you are wrong in regard to the 
" fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. You are unwor- 
" thy the christian name, and unfit to sit with us at the 
" table of Christ. We offer you the truth, and you re- 
ject it at the peril of your souls." Such is the lan- 
guage of humble Christians to men, who in capacity 
and apparent piety are not inferiour to themselves. 
This language has spread from the leaders through a 
considerable part of the community. Men in those 
w r alks of life which leave them without leisure or op- 
portunities for improvement, are heard to decide on 
the most intricate points, and to pass sentence on men, 
whose lives have been devoted to the study of the 
Scriptures. The female, forgetting the tenderness of 
her sex, and the limited advantages which her educa- 
tion affords for a critical study of the Scriptures, in- 
veighs with bitterness against the damnable errours 
of such men as Newton, Locke, Clarke and Price ! 
The young too forget the modesty which belongs to 
their age, and hurl condemnation on the head which 
has grown gray in the service of God and mankind. 
Need I ask, whether this spirit of denunciation for 
supposed errour becomes the humble and fallible dis- 
ciples of Jesus Christ? 

In vindication of this system of exclusion and de- 
nunciation it is often urged, that the " honour of re- 
ligion," the " purity of the church," and the " cause of 
truth," forbid those who hold the true gospel to main- 
tain fellowship with those who support corrupt and 
injurious opinions. Without stopping .to notice the 
modesty of those who claim an exclusive knowledge 
of the true gospel, I would answer, that the " honour 
of religion" can never suffer by admitting to christian 



'fellowship men of irreproachable lives, whilst it has 
suffered most severely from that narrow and unchari- 
table spirit, which has excluded such men for imagin- 
ed errours. I answer again, that the cause of truth 
can never suffer by admitting to christian fellowship 
men, w T ho honestly profess to make the scriptures their 
rule of faith and practice, whilst it has suffered most 
severely by substituting for this standard conformity 
to human creeds and formularies. It is truly wonder- 
ful, if excommunication for supposed errour be the 
method of purifying the church, that the church has 
been so long and so wofully corrupted. Whatever 
may have been the deficiencies of christians in other 
respects, they have certainly discovered no criminal 
reluctance in applying this instrument of purification. 
Could the thunders and lightnings of excommunication 
have corrected the atmosphere of the church, not one 
pestilential vapour would have loaded it for ages. The 
air of paradise would not have been more pure, more 
refreshing. But what does history tell us ? It tells us, 
that the spirit of exclusion and denunciation has con- 
tributed more than all other causes to the corruption 
of the church, to the diffusion of errour ; and has ren- 
dered the records of the christian community as black, 
as bloody, as revolting to humanity, as the records of 
empires founded on conquest and guilt. 

But it is said, did not the apostle denounce the 
erroneous, and pronounce a curse on the " abettors 
of another gospel." This is the strong hold of the 
friends of denunciation. But let us never forget, 
that the apostles were inspired men, capable of mark- 
ing out with unerring certainty those, who substitu- 
ted " another gospel" for the true. Show us their 
successors, and we will cheerfully obey them. 

It is also important to recollect the character ot 
those men, against whom the apostolick anathema 
was directed. They were men, who knew distinctly 
what the apostles taught, and yet opposed it | and 



28 



who endeavoured to sow division, and to gain fol- 
lowers in the churches which the apostles had plant- 
ed. These men, resisting the known instructions of 
the authorized and inspired teachers of the gospel, 
and discovering a factious, selfish, mercenary spirit, 
were justly excluded as unworthy the christian name. 
But what in common with these men, have the Chris- 
tians whom Dr. Worcester and his friends denounce ? 
Do these oppose what they know to be the doctrine 
of Christ and his apostles ? Do they not revere Jesus 
and his inspired messengers ? Do they not dissent 
from Dr. Worcester, simply because they believe 
that Dr. Worcester dissents from their Lord ? — Let 
us not forget, that the contest at the present day is 
not between the apostles themselves, and men who 
oppose their known instructions ; but between unin- 
spired Christians, who equally receive the apostles 
as authorized teachers of the gospel, and who only 
differ in judgment as to the interpretation of their 
writings. How unjust then is it for any class of 
Christians to confound their opponents with the fac- 
tious and unprincipled sectarians of the primitive 
age. Mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge 
which one denomination has now a right to urge 
against another ; and do we find that the apostles 
ever denounced mistake as " awful and fatal hostili- 
ty" to the gospel, that they pronounced anathemas 
on men who wished to obey, but who misappre- 
hended their doctrines. The apostles well remem- 
bered, that none ever mistook more widely than them- 
selves. They remembered too the lenity of their Lord 
towards their errours, and this lenity they cherished 
and laboured to diffuse. 

But Dr. Worcester will ask, if Christians have not 
a right to bear " solemn testimony" against opinions 
which are " utterly subversive of the gospel, and 
most dangerous to men's eternal interests." To this 
I answer, that the opinions of men, who discover 



20 



equal intelligence and piety with ourselves, are enti- 
tled to respectful consideration. If after inquiry 
they seem erroneous and injurious, we are authorized 
and bound, according to our ability, to expose, by 
fair and serious argument, their nature and tendency. 
But I maintain, that we have no right as individuals, 
or in an associated capacity, to bear our " solemn 
testimony" against these opinions, by menacing with 
ruin the Christian who listens to them, or by brand- 
ing them with the most terrifying epithets, for the 
purpose of preventing candid inquiry into their 
truth. This is the fashionable mode of " bearing 
testimony," and it is a weapon which will always be 
most successful in the hands of the proud, the positive 
and overbearing, who are most impatient of contra- 
diction, and have least regard to the rights of their 
brethren. 

But whatever may be the right of Christians, as to 
bearing testimony against opinions which they deem 
injurious, I deny, that they have any right to pass a 
condemning sentence, on account of these opinions, 
on the characters of men whose general deportment is 
conformed to the gospel of Christ. Both scripture 
and reason unite in teaching, that the best and only 
standard of character is the life ; and he who over- 
looks the testimony of a christian life, and grounds a 
sentence of condemnation on opinions, about which 
he as well as his brother may err, violates most fla^ 
grantly the duty of just and candid judgment, and 
opposes the peaceful and charitable spirit of the gos- 
pel. Jesus Christ says, " By their fruits shall ye 
know them." " Not every one, that saith unto me* 
Lord, Lord.shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,but 
he who doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 
* Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command 
you." " He that heareth and doeth these my sayings" 
h e. the precepts of the sermon on the mount, " I will 
Kken him to a man who built his house upon a rock," 



30 



it would be easy to multiply similar passages. The 
whole scriptures teach us, that he and he only is a 
Christian, whose life is governed by the precepts of 
the gospel, and that by this standard alone, the 
profession of this religion should be tried. We 
do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form 
a judgment as to our christian character. But we 
insist that we have a right to be judged by the fairest, 
the most approved, and the most settled rules, by 
which character can be tried ; and when these are 
overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is ap- 
plied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, 
which rests on this ground, deserves no better name 
than defamation and persecution. 

I know that this suggestion of persecution will be 
indignantly repelled by those who deal most largely 
in denunciation. But persecution is a wrong or in- 
jury inflicted for opinions, and surely assaults on 
character fall under this definition. Some persons 
seem to think, that persecution consists in pursuing 
errour with fire and sword; and that therefore it 
has ceased to exist, except in distempered imagina- 
tions, because no class of Christians among us is 
armed with these terrible weapons. But, no. The 
form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution 
has given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes 
venom from its lips, and secretly blasts what it can- 
not openly destroy. For example, a liberal minis- 
ter, however circumspect in his walk, however irre- 

Eroachable in all his relations, no sooner avows his 
onest convictions on some of the most difficult subjects, 
than his name begins to be a by-word. A thousand 
suspicions are infused into his hearers ; and it is in- 
sinuated, that he is a minister of satan, in "the guise 
of an angel of light." At a little distance from his 
home, calumny assumes a bolder tone. He is pro- 
nounced an infidel, and it is gravely asked, whether 
he believes in a God. At a greater distance, his 



31 



morals are assailed. He is a maa of the world, 
44 leading souls to hell," to gratify the most selfish 
passions. But notwithstanding all this, he must not 
say a word about persecution, for reports like these 
rack no limbs ; they do not even injure a hair of 
his head ; and how then is he persecuted ? — Now for 
myself, I am as willing that my adversary should take 
my purse or my life, as that he should rob me of my 
reputation, rob me of the affection of my friends, and 
of my means of doing good. 44 He who takes from 
me my good name," takes the best possession of 
which human power can deprive me. It is true, that 
a Christian's reputation is comparatively a light ob- 
ject ; and so is his property, so is his life ; all are 
light things to him, whose hope is full of immortality. 
But, of all worldly blessings, an honest reputa- 
tion is to manj of us the most precious ; and he who 
robs us of it, is the most injurious of mankind, and 
among the worst of persecutors. Let not the friends 
of denunciation attempt to escape this charge, by 
pleading their sense of duty, and their sincere de« 
sire to promote the cause of truth. St. Dominic 
was equally sincere, when he built the inquisition } 
and I doubt not that many torturers of Christians have 
fortified their reluctant minds, at the moment of ap- 
plying the rack and the burning iron, by the sincere 
conviction, that the cause of truth required the sacri- 
fice of its foes. I beg that these remarks may not be 
applied indiscriminately to the party called 44 ortho^ 
dox," among whom are multitudes,whose humility and 
charity would revolt from making themselves the 
standards of christian piety, and from assailing the 
christian character of their brethren. 

Many other considerations may be added to those 
which have been already urged, against the system 
of excluding from christian fellowship men of upright 
lives, on account of their opinions. It necessarily 
generates perpetual discord in the church. Men 



fliffer in opinions as much as in features. No two 
minds are perfectly accordant. The shades of belief 
are infinitely diversified. Amidst this immense variety 
of sentiment, every man is right in his own eyes. 
Every man discovers errours in the creed of his bro- 
ther. Every man is prone to magnify the impor- 
tance of his own peculiarities, and to discover danger 
in the peculiarities of others. This is human nature, 
Everyman is partial to his own opinions, because they 
are his own, and his self-will and pride are wounded 
by contradiction. Now what must we expect, when 
beings so erring, so divided in sentiment, and so apt 
to be unjust to the views of others, assert the right 
of excluding one another from the christian church, 
on account of imagined errour ? As the Scriptures 
confine this right to no individual and to no body of 
Christians, it belongs alike to all ; and what must we 
expect, when Christians of all capacities and disposi- 
tions, the ignorant, prejudiced, and self-conceited,, 
imagine it their duty to prescribe opinions to Chris- 
tendom, and to open or to shut the door of the church 
according to the decision which their neighbours may 
form on some of the most perplexing points of theolo- 
gy ? This question unhappily has received answer 
upon answer in ecclesiastical history. We there see 
christians denouncing and excommunicating one 
another for supposed errour, until every denomination 
has been pronounced accursed by some portion of the 
christian world ; so that were the curses of men to 
prevail, not one human being would enter heaven. 
To me it appears, that to plead for the right of exclud- 
ing men of blameless lives, on account of their opinions, 
is to sound the peal of perpetual and universal war. 
Arm men with this power, and we shall have "nothing 
but thunder." Some persons are sufficiently simple 
to imagine, that if this " horrid Unitarianism" were 
once hunted down, and put quietly into its grave, the 
church would be at peace. But, no : our present con* 



33 



tests have their origin, not in the " enormities" of Uni- 
tarianism, but very much in the principles of human 
nature, in the love of power, in impatience of contra- 
diction, in men's passion for imposing their own 
views upon others, in the same causes which render 
them anxious to make proselytes to all their opinions. 
Were Unitarianism quietly interred, another and 
another hideous form of errour would start up 
before the zealous guardians of the 44 purity of 
the church." The Arminian, from whom the 
pursuit has been diverted for a time by his more 
offending Unitarian brother, would soon be awa- 
kened from his dream of security, by the clamour 
of denunciation ; and should the Arminian fall 
a prey, the Calvinists would then find time to 
look into the controversies among themselves, and 
almost every class would discover, with the eagle 
eye of their brethren at New-York, that those who 
differ from them hold 44 another gospel," and ought 
to be 44 resisted and denounced." Thus the wars of 
Christians will be perpetual. Never will there be 
peace, until Christians agree to differ, and agree to 
took for the evidences of Christian character in 
the temper and the life. 

Another argument against this practice of denoun- 
cing the supposed errours of sincere professors of 
Christianity, is this. It exalts to supremacy in the 
church, men, who have the least claim to influence. 
Humble, meek, and affectionate Christians are least 
disposed to make creeds for their brethren, and to de- 
nounce those who differ from them. On the contrary, 
the impetuous, proud, and enthusiastick, men who can- 
not or will not weigh the arguments of opponents, are 
always most positive, and most unsparing in denun- 
ciation. These take the lead in a system of exclu- 
sion. They have no false modesty, no false charity, 
to shackle their zeal in framing fundamentals for 
their brethren, and in punishing the obstinate in 



34 



errour. The consequence is, that creeds are formed" 
which exclude from Christ's church some of his 
truest followers, which outrage reason as well as 
revelation, and which subsequent ages are obliged 
to mutilate and explain away, lest the whole religion 
be rejected by men of reflection. Such has been the 
history of the church. It is strange that we do not 
learn wisdom from the past. What man, who feels 
his own fallibility, who sees the errours into which 
the positive and 66 orthodox" of former times have 
been betrayed, and who considers his own utter 
inability to decide on the degree of truth, which every 
mind, of every capacity, must receive in order to sal- 
vation, will not tremble at the responsibility of pre- 
scribing to his brethren, in his own words, the views 
they must maintain on the most perplexing subjects 
of religion ? Humility will always leave this work to 
others. 

Another important consideration is, that this sys- 
tem of excluding men of apparent sincerity, for their 1 
opinions, entirely subverts free inquiry into the scrip- 
tures. When once a particular system is surrounded 
by this bulwark ; when once its defenders have 
brought the majority to believe, that the rejection of 
it is a mark of depravity and perdition, what but the 
name of liberty is left to Christians ? The obstacles to 
inquiry are as real, and may be as powerful, as in the 
neighbourhood of the inquisition. The multitude 
dare not think, and the thinking dare not speak. The 
right of private judgment may thus, in a protestant 
country, be reduced to a nullity. It is true, that men 
are sent to the scriptures ; but they are told before 
they go, that they will be driven from the church on 
earth and in heaven, unless they find in the scriptures 
the doctrines which are embodied in the popular 
creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire for them- 
selves ; but they are also told, at what points inquiry 
must arrive ; and the sentence of exclusion hangs over 



35 



them, if they happen to stray with some of the best 
and wisest men into forbidden paths. Now thi# 
" protestant liberty" is, in one respect, more irrita- 
ting than Papal bondage. It mocks as well as en- 
slaves us. It talks to us courteously as friends and 
brethren, whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and 
even charges us to look with our own eyes, but with 
the same breath warns us against seeing any thing 
which orthodox eyes have not seen before us. Is 
this a state of things favourable to serious inquiry in- 
to the truths of the gospel ; yet, how long has the 
church been groaning under this cruel yoke ? 

Another objection to this system of excluding pro- 
fessed disciples of Christ, on account of their opin- 
ions, is, that it is inconsistent with the great principles 
of Congregationalism. In churches, where the pow- 
er is lodged in a few individuals, who are supposed 
to be the most learned men in the community, the 
work of marking out and excluding the erroneous 
may seem less difficult. But among Congregation- 
alists, the tribunal before which the offender is to be 
brought is the whole church, consisting partly of 
men in humble circumstances, and of unimproved 
minds ; partly of men engaged in active and pressing 
business ; and partly of men of education, whose 
studies have been directed to law and medicine* 
Now, is this a tribunal, before which the most intri- 
cate points of theology are to be discussed, and seri- 
ous inquirers are to answer for opinions, which they 
have perhaps examined more laboriously and faith- 
fully than all their judges ? Would a church of hum- 
ble men, conscious of their limited opportunities, 
consent to try for these pretended crimes professing 
Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and as exemplary 
as themselves ? It is evident, that in the business of 
excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more 
than the tool of the minister, or a few influential 
members ; and our churches are, in general, too in** 



36 



dependent and too upright to take this part in so so- 
lemn a transaction. To correct their deiiciencies, and 
to quicken their zeal on this point, we are now threat- 
ened with new tribunals, or consociations, whose office 
it will be to try ministers for their errours, to inspect 
the churches, and to advise and assist them in the ex- 
tirpation of " heresy." Whilst the laky are slumber- 
ing, the ancient and free constitution of our churches 
is silently undermined, and is crumbling away. Since 
argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of 
opinion, recourse must be had to more powerful in- 
struments of conviction ; I mean, to ecclesiastical 
courts. And are this people indeed prepared to 
submit to this most degrading form of vassalage ; a 
vassalage, which reaches and palsies the mind, and 
imposes on it the dreams and fictions of men, for the 
everlasting truth of God ! 

These remarks lead me to the last consideration, 
which I shall urge, against the proposed system of 
exclusion and separation. This system will shake to 
the foundation our religious institutions, and destroy 
many habits and connexions which have had the 
happiest influence on the religious character of this 
people. In the first place, if christian communion 
and all acknowledgments of christian character are 
to be denied on the ground of difference of opinion, 
the annual " Convention of Congregational ministers, 
of Massachusetts," that ancient bond of union, must 
be dissolved ; and in its dissolution we shall lose the 
edifying, honourable, and rare example of ministers 
regularly assembling, not to exercise power and to 
fetter the conscience, but to reciprocate kind affec- 
tion, and to unite in sending relief to the families of 
their deceased brethren. This event may gladden 
the heart of the sectarian ; it will carry no joy to the 
widow and orphan.- — In the next place, the " Associ- 
ations of ministers," in our different counties must 
in many cases be broken up, to make room for new 



associations, founded on similarity of opinion. Thus, 
that intercourse, which now subsists between minis- 
ters of different persuasions, and which tends to en- 
large the mind, and to give a liberality to the feelings, 
will be diminished, if not destroyed ; and ministers, 
becoming more contracted and exclusive, will com- 
municate more of this unhappy spirit to their socie- 
ties. — In the next place, neighbouring churches;, 
which, from their very foundation, have cultivated 
christian communion, and counselled and comforted 
each other, will be mutually estranged, and catching 
the temper of their religious guides, will exchange 
fellowship for denunciation; and instead of de- 
lighting in each other's prosperity, will seek each 
other's destruction.— Again, in the same church, 
where Christians of different views have long ac- 
knowledged each other as disciples of one Master, 
and have partaken the same feast of charity, angry 
divisions will break forth, parties will be marshalled 
under different leaders, the sentence of excommunica- 
tion will be hurled by the majority on their guiltless 
brethren, (if the majority should be "orthodox,") and 
thus anger, heart-burnings, and bitter recriminations 
will spread through many of our towns and churches* 
— Again ; many of our religious societies will be rent 
asunder, their ministers dismissed, and religious insti- 
tutions cease. It is well known, that many of our 
country parishes are able to support but a single 
minister. At the same time, they are divided in sen- 
timent ; and nothing but a spirit of charity and for- 
bearance has produced that union, by which publick 
worship has been maintained. Once let the proposed 
war be proclaimed, let the standard of party be rais- 
ed, and a minister must look for support to that party 
only to which he is attached. An " orthodox" min- 
ister should blush to ask it from men, whom he de- 
nounces for honest opinions, and to whom he denies 
all the ordinances of the gospel. It surely cannot be 



38 



expected that liberal Christians will contribute, by 
their property, to uphold a system of exclusion and 
intolerance directed against themselves. What then 
will be the fate of many of our societies ? Their 
ministers, even now, can with difficulty maintain the 
comiict with other denominations : must they not 
sink, when deserted by their most efficient friends ? 
Many societies will be left, as sheep without a shep- 
herd, a prey to those whom we call Sectarians, but 
who will no longer have an exclusive right to the 
name, if the system of division, which has been pro- 

{>osed, be adopted. Many ministers will be compel- 
ed to leave the field of their labours and their pro- 
spects of usefulness ; and I fear the ministry will lose 
its hold on the affection and veneration of men, when 
it shall heve engendered so much division and con- 
tentions—But this is not all. The system of denying 
the christian name to those who differ from us in in- 
terpreting the scriptures, will carry discord not only 
into churches, but families. In how many instances 
are heads of families divided in opinion on the pre- 
sent subjects of controversy. Hitherto they have 
loved each other as partakers of the same glorious 
fcopes, and have repaired in their domestick joys and 
sorrows to the same God (as they imagined,) 
through the same Mediator. But now they are 
taught, that they have different Gods and different gos-' 
pels, and are taught that the friends of truth are not 
to hold communion with its rejectors. Let this doc- 
trine be received, and one of the tenderest ties by 
which many wedded hearts are knit together will be 
dissolved. The family altar must fall. Religion 
will be known in many a domestick retreat, not as a 
bond of union, but a subject of debate 5 a source of 
discord or depression. 

Now I ask, for what boon are all these sacrifices to 
be made ? The great end is, that certain opinions, 
which have been embraced by many serious and hr- 



39 

Quiring Christians as the truth of God, may be driven 
from the church, and be dreaded by the people as 
among the worst of crimes. Uniformity of opinion^ 
that airy good, which emperors, popes, councils, sy- 
nods, bishops, and ministers have been seeking for 
ages, by edicts, creeds, threatenings, excommunica- 
tions, inquisitions and flames, this is the great 
object of the system of exclusion, separation, and 
denunciation which is now to be introduced. To 
this we are to sacrifice our established habits and 
bonds of union, and this is to be pursued by means 5 
which, as many reflecting men believe, threaten our 
dearest rights and liberties. 

It is sincerely hoped, that reflecting laymen will no 
longer shut their eyes on this subject. It is a melan- 
choly fact, that our long established congregational 
form of church government is menaced, and tribunals 
unknown to our churches, and unknown, as we be- 
lieve, to the scriptures, are to be introduced ; and in- 
troduced for the very purpose, that the supposed er- 
rours and mistakes of ministers and private Christians 
may be tried and punished as heresies, i. e. as crimes. 
In these tribunals, as in all ecclesiastical bodies, the 
clergy, who make theology their profession, will of 
necessity have a preponderating influence, so that 
the question now before the publick is in fact only a 
new form of the old controversy, which has agitated 
all ages, viz. whether the clergy shall think for the laity y 
or prescribe to them their religion ? Were this question 
fairly proposed to the publick, there would be but 
one answer ; but it is wrapped up in a dark phraseo- 
logy about the purity and order of the church, a 
phraseology, which, 1 believe, imposes on multitudes 
of ministers as well as laymen, and induces acquies- 
cence in measures, the real tendency of which they 
would abhor. It is, I hope, from no feeling of party, 
but from a sincere regard to the religion of Christ, that 
I would rouse the slumbering minds of this community 



4Q 



to the dangers which hang over their religious insti- 
tutions. No power is so rapidly accumulated, or so 
dreadfully abused as ecclesiastical power. It assails 
men with menaces of eternal wo, unless they submit, 
and gradually awes the most stubborn and strongest 
minds into subjection. I mean not to ascribe the in- 
tention of introducing ecclesiastical tyranny to any 
class of Christians among us ; but, I believe that ma- 
ny, in the fervour of a zeal which may be essentially 
virtuous, are about to touch with unhallowed hands 
the ark of God, to support Christianity by measures 
which its mild and charitable spirit abhors. I believe, 
that many, overlooking the principles of human na- 
ture, and the history of the church, are about to set 
in motion a spring of which they know not the force, 
and cannot calculate the effects. I believe, that the 
seed of spiritual tyranny is sown, and although to a 
careless spectator it may seem the " smallest of all 
seeds," it has yet, within itself, a fatal principle of 
increase, and may yet darken this region of our coun- 
try with its deadly branches. 

The time is come, when the friends of christian 
liberty and christian charity are called to awake, and 
to remember their duties to themselves, to posterity, 
and to the church of Christ. The time is come, when 
the rights of conscience and the freedom of our 
churches must be defended with zeal. The time is 
come, when menace and denunciation must be 
met with a spirit, which will show, that we dread 
not the frowns, and lean not on the favour of 
man. The time is come, when every expression of 
superiority on the part of our brethren should be re- 
pelled as criminal usurpation. But in doing this, let 
the friends of liberal and genuine Christianity remem- 
ber the spirit of their religion. Let no passion or 
bitterness dishonour their sacred cause. In contend- 
ing for the gospel, let them not lose it virtues or 
forfeit its promises. — We are indeed called to pass 



through one of the severest trials of human virtue., 
the trial of controversy. We should carry with us a 
sense of its danger. Religion, when made a subject 
of debate, seems often to lose its empire over the 
heart and life. The mild and affectionate spirit of 
Christianity gives place to angry recriminations and 
cruel surmises. Fair dealing, uprightness, and truth 
are exchanged for the quibbling and arts of sophistry. 
The devotional feelings, too, decline in warmth and 
tenderness. Let us then watch and pray. Let us 
take heed that the weapons of oar warfare be not 
carnal. Whilst we repel usurpation, let us be just 
to the general rectitude of many by whom our 
christian rights are invaded. Whilst we repel the 
uncharitable censures of men, let us not forget that 
deep humility and sense of unworthiness, with which 
we should ever appear before our Maker. In our 
zeal to maintain the great truth, that our Father in 
Heaven is alone the Supreme God, let us not neglect 
that intercourse with him, without which the purest 
conceptions will avail little to enthrone him in our 
hearts. In our zeal to hold fast the 44 word of Christ" 
in opposition to human creeds and formularies, let us 
not forget, that our Lord demands another and a still 
more unsuspicious confession of him. even the exhibi- 
tion of his spirit and religion in our lives. 

The controversy in which we are engaged is in- 
deed painful ; but it was not chosen, but forced upon 
us, and we ought to regard it as a part of the disci- 
pline to which a wise Providence has seen fit to sub- 
ject us. Like all our other trials, it is designed to 
promote our moral perfection. I trust, too, that it is 
designed to promote the cause of truth. Whilst I 
would speak diffidently of the future, I still hope, that 
a brighter day is rising on the christian church, than 
it has yet enjoyed. The gospel is to shine forth in 
its native glory. The violent excitement, by which 
some of the corruptions of this divine system are now 

6 



42 



supported, cannot be permanent ; and the uncharita- 
bleness with which they are enforced, will re-act, like 
the persecutions of the church of Rome, in favour 
of truth. Already we have the comfort of seeing 
many disposed to inquire, and to inquire without 
that terrour, which has bound as with a spell so 
many minds. We doubt not, that this inquiry will 
result in a deep conviction that Christianity is yet dis- 
figured by errours which have been transmitted from 
ages of darkness. Of this, at least, we are sure, that 
inquiry, by discovering to men the difficulties and 
obscurities which attend the present topicks of con- 
troversy, will terminate in what is infinitely more 
desirable than doctrinal concord, in the diffusion of a 
mild, candid, and charitable temper. I pray God. 
that this most happy consummation may be in no 
degree obstructed by any unchristian feelings, which, 
notwithstanding my sincere efforts, have escaped me 
in the present controversy. 



NOTE. 



It would be easy to point out many exceptionable pas- 
sages in Dr. Worcester's letter ; but I wish to "abstain even 
from the appearance" of that minute and carping criticism, so 
common in controversy, which, overlooking the general im- 
port of a book, and the great points of controversy, seizes 
on unguarded expressions, exposes petty inaccuracies, ex- 
torts inferences of which the author never dreamed, and 
aims to humble an opponent instead of meeting the great 
question in dispute. There are, however, a few particulars 
in Dr. Worcester's letter, which ought not to be passed over 
in that silence, which in the present and in my former re- 
marks I have observed towards many objectionable expres- 
sions and passages. 

A common res der would imagine from Dr. Worcester* a 
language, that from the age of Christ to the present time, 
there has been a succession of Christians called " orthodox," 
who have agreed in opinion on the disputed doctrines of the 
gospel. But this is a fiction. The opinions of some of the 
" most orthodox" in New-England, on the Triniiy, would 
have exposed them, I fear, to excommunication by the " or- 
thodox" in some of the early ages of Christianity. If I were 
to define the word " orthodox," I should say that it means 
the predominant party in the church, and especially those 
who are so destitute of humility as to arrogate to themselves 
an exclusive understanding of the gospel. 

Dr. Worcester in his first letter had this remarkable, and I 
think, very unhappy passage. " The God whom you wor- 
ship, is different from ours." To remove this impression, I 
declared very fully, the God whom I worship. Dr. Worces- 
ter has taken no notice of this statement, but observes, " We 
worship the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Do you worship 
this same God." To this question I will endeavour to give 
a satisfactory answer. If by " the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost " Dr. Worcester means the God of Abraham, of 
Isaac, of Jacob, who glorified his son Jesus, whom Peter 
preached Acts iii ; if he means the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ to whom Paul bent the knee ; if he means 



44 



that &od whom Jesus worshipped in the solemn hour of 
death, saying, "Father into thy hands, I commit my spirit ;" 
if he means that God of whom Jesus spoke in these memora- 
ble words, " the hour cometh and now is, when the true 
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; 
if he means that God of whom Paul said ; " To us (i. e. to 
Christians) there is one God, even the Father ; if by " the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost," Dr. Worcester means this 
God, who is proposed to us in these passages, the God of 
Jesus Christ, of Abraham, of Paul and of Christians, then I 
worship " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." I sincerely 
hope that this is D: . Worcester's meaning, for it would give 
me great pain to believe that he and his friends worship any 
other than the " God of Jesus Christ" and the God of Chris- 
tians. — Why does he use phraseology, which renders this 
po.nt in the least degree doubtful? Why does he not speak 
of the true God in the simple and affecting language of the 
scriptures 1 Jesus in his sermon on the Mount, has given us 
very particular instructions in relation to the object of om? 
worship, and has closed this discourse with a solemn declara- 
tion, that if we obey the precepts which it contains, we 
shall be " like the man who built his house on a rock." — 
Now in this longest and most particular discourse of Jesus, 
whom does he tell us to worship. Does he say, when ye 
pray, pray to " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." No — 
His language, so simple, so touching, so encouraging, should 
be engraven on all our hearts. " Thou, when thou prayest 9 
ft enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door 
u pray to thy Father who is in secret." Again. " When 
" ye pray, say, Our Father, who art in Heaven ;" And 
again. ** If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts to 
" your children, how much .aore shall your Father who is 
" in heaven give good things to them that ask him" To 
these most interesting precepts of Jesus, I and my brethren 
yield entire and cheerful obedience. With these precepts 
the whole scriptures concur.. We find not one passage in 
the scriptures, commanding us to worship " the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost ;" not one precedent, which authorizes such 
Worship, and while we feel ourselves bound to exercise 
christian candour towards those who adopt this form of wor- 
ship, we are not without solemn apprehension, that, in this 
respect, they are guilty of irreverence towards the word of 
God, and of preferring to it the commandments and inven- 
tions of men. Let them weigh seriously these remarks. 



45 



In my former remarks, I repelled the assertion of Br, 
Worcester, that our Saviour is infinitely inferiour to 
his, by declaring that " We believe that God saves us 
by his son Jesus Christ in whom he dwells, and through 
whom he bestows pardon and eternal life." Dr. W orcester 
says, that this is to declare that Jesus Christ is not our Sa- 
viour. I lament that his letter is dishonoured by such a re- 
mark. Does he not know that the apostles again and again 
speak of God as our Saviour, and as saving us by Jesus 
Christ ? Do they therefore deny Jesus to be our Saviour ? 
In 2 Tim. i. 1. we find these words of Paul, " Paul an apos- 
" tie of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of 
*' God our Saviour, and of Jesus Christ our hope." Here 
God, and not Jesus Christ, is called the Saviour. Did 
Paul intend to deny this name of Jesus Christ ? Is not this 
name applied to Jesus because he is the minister of God 
in our salvation, and do we then refuse it to him, when we 
declare that it primarily belongs to God, his Father. In 
1 Tim. ii. 3, we meet these words, " This is acceptable in 
the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be 
saved ; for there is one God, and one Mediator between 
God and >nen, the man Christ Jesus." Here God is emi- 
nently our Saviour, and Jesus saves us as he is his minis- 
ter. In Titus 3, 4, &c. we see this title applied both to 
God and Jesus Christ in a manner which shows that it be- 
longs to God in the first and highest sense. " After that 
the kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us 
by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour. % The 
apostle, it seems, thought that he might call Jesus Christ 
our Saviour, all hough he considered God as originally and 
eminently our Saviour, and as saving us through or by Je- 
sus Christ. I will add one more passage from Jude. "Now 
unto him who is able to keep you from falling, to the only 
God, our Saviour, be glory through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." See Griesbach. Had Dr. Worcester weighed 
these passages, he would not have made the rash and very- 
improper charge, which I am considering. — Is not the reader 
inclined to think, that the apostles wrote very much like 
Unitarians ? 

It was my intention in this note to show the weakness of 
the scripture proof of the Trinity which Dr. Worcester has 

* lojoaitsome clauses that the connexion may be better seen* 



46 



adduced in his letter. But this pamphlet is already extend- 
ed beyond my wishes ; and besides, I wish to separate the 
discussion of the Trinity from the present controversy. I 
would therefore only observe in relation to the texts which 
have been collected by Dr. Worcester, that nothing is easi- 
er than to produce a string of texts in support of almost 
every doctrine. Calvinism and Arminianism, Universal 
Salvation and the doctrine of eternal punishment, tiansub- 
stantiation and other tenets of popery, may each and a!l be 
supported by detached passages as conclusive as those 
which Dr. Worcester has produced for the Trinity. This 
mode of defence is peculiarly suited to the Trinitarian cause, 
which rests on a comparatively small number of disconnect- 
ed texts. Unitarianism, besides being directly affirmed in 
particular passages, runs through the whole scriptures, ap- 
pears on the whole current of sentiment and langrage in the 
old and the new Testament, its proofs are not therefore to be 
despatched in so narrow a compass. It is my earnest desire 
that the publick attention may be turned from individuals to 
this point. Why cannot this controversy be conducted with 
calmness, without impeachment of character or motives, and 
without appeals to popular feeling ? We have all an equal 
interest in discovering truth ; and no zeal, and no sophistry, 
can long support the cause of errour. Let us then encour- 
age fair and dispassionate discussion, and be careful to 
throw no obstruction in the way of free and honest inquiry. 

I have now a few words to offer on the " separation" 
made by some of the Unitarians in England, to which Dr. 
Worcester seems disposed to attach great importance. I 
inferred (perhaps inconsiderately) from the statement of 
Dr. Worcester in his first letter, that these Unitarians had 
so far introduced their peculiarities into their pubiick wor- 
ship, that other Christians were virtually excluded. Of 
this separation I expressed no approbation, but simply ob- 
served that it by no means amounted to the separation 
which is recommended in this country, which would deny 
the christian character to a large body of professing Chris- 
tians. Dr. Worcester, however, by a kind of reasoning, 
which is too common with him, infers that this kind of se- 
paration would be quite agreeable to me, and spends a page 
in observations founded chiefly on my silence. Since 
writing my remarks, I have been happy to learn thai the 
impressions which I received from Dr. Worcester respect- 
ing these English Unitarians were incorrect. I am inform- 



47 



ed, that their worship is singularly free from peculiarities,, 
and that all Christians may join in it without hesitation or 
pain. I learn, that Mr. Lindsey introduced into his chapel 
the Liturgy of the church of England, omitting only the 
fe r parts in which the doctrine of the Trinity is recognized, 
ana directing all the prayers to the Father through the Son. 
This is the worship which is most common among all de- 
nominations in this country, and by which no Christian can 
be offended. Most sincerely do I wish, that our publick 
services may be marked by this liberal character. Very 
different classes of Christians, I am persuaded, may unite 
in the same worship, and be built up at once in godliness 
and charity. I have listened with great satisfaction to the 
prayers of Trinitarians, and I have heard from very ardent 
Trinitarians expressions of great interest in prayers which 
have been offered by Unitarians. True piety, when un- 
fettered by system, approaches the Father through the 
Son, and supplicates earnestly for the aids of the Holy 
Spirit. 

Dr. Worcester speaks in his letter of the " awful temeri- 
" ty of adjudging to eternal life, men, however fair their 
" character in the eyes of the world, however renowned for 
" what the world calls wisdom, however distinguished 
" among the friends of science or of sacred literature, who 
" nevertheless deny the blood of atonement, degrade 
" t he Lord, who bought them, to the condition of a mere crea- 
" ture, go about to establish their own righteousness," &c. 
This passage is designed to teach us that we cannot with- 
out awful temerity admire the christian virtues and labours 
of such men as Newton, Locke, Lardner and Price, or che- 
rish the delightful hope that they have gone to receive the 
rewards of faithful servants of Jesus Christ. I confess that 
I am shocked when I hear the humble Lardner, (at whom 
these remarks seem principally aimed) charged with degrad- 
ing that Saviour, to whose cause his life was devoted, with 
criminal insensibility to his honour and with a proud de- 
pendence on " his own righteousness." There must 
be something wrong, dreadfully wrong, in a religious system, 
which calls us to breathe mildew on the fairest and most 
interesting characters which have adorned the church, and 
to repress the gratitude and admiration which spontaneous- 
ly spring up in a pure mind towards the most illustrious 
benefactors of mankind. If it be " awful temerity" to 
think Lardner a good man, where is the human being whose 



48 



piety we ought not to distrust. What can preserve us 
from distrusting the reality of all human virtue ? To this 
mournful result, Ihe present system of denunciation directly 
tends. It tends to diffuse the most fatal kind of skepti- 
cism, a skepticism in regard to the reality of all moral and 
religious excellence. If the marks of christian virlue which 
have been exhibited by Unitarians be false and delusive, 
then none are worthy of confidence, and the slanders which 
the Atheist has cast on human piety cannot be refuted. — 
If " orthodoxy" encourage and demand this fatal censori- 
ousnegs, it cannot be of God, it cannot ultimately prevail. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



